This seems cool but man it's hard to get over the very, very obvious AI writing.
- "It’s not an accident — it’s driven by the same physics." The classic "it's not x, it's y", with an em-dash thrown in for good measure
- "Typhon brings these into the component storage model — not as bolted-on workarounds, but as first-class citizens." More "not x, but y", this time with a leading clause joined by an emdash
- "Blittable, unmanaged, fixed-size, stored contiguously per type — that’s the ECS side." Short, punchy list of examples, emdash'd to a stinger, again typical of LLM writing
- "Schema in code, not SQL. Components are C# structs with attributes, not DDL statements. Natural for game developers, unfamiliar territory for database administrators. If your team thinks in SQL, this is a paradigm shift." This whole mini-paragraph is the x/y style, combined with the triplet / rule-of-three, just at the sentence scale. And then of course, the stinger at the end.
Definitive, no, but it certainly has a particular flavor that reads as LLM output to me.
At some point this is not positive for the community.
"Hi there, I am Loïc Baumann, I’m from Paris area, France I develop, since early 90s, first assembly, then C++ and nowadays mostly .net.
My area of interest are 3D programming, low-latency/highly-scalable/performant solutions and many other things."
Compare that style to what's in this most recent blog - mildly ungrammatical constructions typical of an ESL writer, straightforward and plain style vs breathless, feed-optimized "not x, but y", triplet/rule of three constructions, perfect native speaker grammar but an oddly hollow tone. Or look at this post from 2018: https://nockawa.github.io/microservice-or-not-microservice/ It's just radically different (at a concrete syntactic level, no emdashes). I'm sure he has technical chops and it's cool that he worked on DOTS, but I would bet a very large amount of money he wrote the bullet points describing this project and then prompted GPT 5.3 to expand them to a blog post to "save time".
It is far more likely that AI-written articles will become harder to spot, not that they will stop being written.
Calling what out? Did we suddenly invent a durable Turing test that will last more than six months? (We didn't, but some people "just know")
The only durable metric is if the article is good, if the ideas are good. Everything else is complaining about Bob Dylan's electric guitar.
I posted this elsewhere, but convincingly, consistently "writing like AI" and never slipping once takes an amount of knowledge and skill analogous to art forgery. Except that with art forgery you can at least make millions of dollars off it.
If you want to read chatbot output, why are you coming here? There's a ton of free chatbots for you to read.
After all, the audience here knows where to go to get chatbot output, but they're coming here instead. What does that tell you?
That HN was a neat community fifteen years ago, but like all things cool made by early adopters, it will eventually attract a following hoping to be somewhere, to exist among people doing things, but the tragedy of such followings is that they bring with them their toxicity, their immunity to their own poison, and drown out what they depend on until the early adopters early adopt away.
The real slop is all this lazy concern farming from an ant mill that is powerless to do anything except validate its own hand wringing.
Which circles back to the question of why, if you want to read AI output, are you still here?
You can read that sort of thing just about anywhere else.